Skip to main content

Full text of "The Canadian industrial disputes investigation act"

See other formats


55Q£> 

mm 2. 



■I ■ 


A 




~" ^o 






A 




<~ 





;_ zj 




o 




— — = ^ 






1 






m 


4 


<~> 












The 

Canadian Industrial Disputes 

Investigation Act 



Research Report Number 5 
April, 1918 

Revised and Reprinted 
April, 1920 



National Industrial 
Conference Board 



This book is DUE on the last date stamped below 



ED 
5508 

f. board. - 
n e Canadian Indus 
p utes invocti 
act. 



Form L-9-10 



^tg. 



•,.'. 



A 




•sS"^ 





Southern Branch 
of the 

University of California 

Los Angeles 

Form L I 

5506 



THE CANADIAN 

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 

INVESTIGATION 

ACT 

UN] ntja 

LOS AiNGELES 
LIBRARY 

Research Report Number 5 
April, 1918 



Revised and Reprinted 
April, 1920 



Copyright 1918 



National Industrial Conference Board 

1 5 Beacon Street 
Boston, Mass. 



'900 



Foreword 



THE rapid development of legislation for the adjust- 
ment of industrial disputes both in America and 
Europe emphasizes the importance of experience under 
such laws, particularly those that have been in operation 
for a length of time sufficient to reveal their practical 
working and the social reactions which develop under 
them. 

The present report deals with the operation of one of 
the most important of these statutes, the Canadian 
Industrial Disputes Investigation Act of 1907, which 
has been in operation without essential change for thir- 
teen vears. 






The Canadian Industrial Disputes 
Investigation Act 



& The Canadian Industrial Disputes Investigation Act of 
^ 1907 does not embody the whole of Canadian law for 
v dealing with labor disputes, but was enacted as a supple- 
ment to two other laws both of which are still in force. 
The Conciliation Act of 1900 followed in a general way 
certain usages long in operation, first as custom, and 
later as law, in the coal-mining districts of England. That 
Act created a Department of Labour and provided 
machinery for mediation or arbitration, but its use was 
A left to voluntary action of the parties to a dispute. The 
! Railway Disputes Act of 1903, gave to the Minister of 
^ Labour a limited power of compulsion with respect to 
the establishment of conciliation boards in labor disputes 
between railroad companies and their employees. Where 
such a dispute arose, a Board of Conciliation could be 
appointed by the Minister of Labour on the request of 
either of the parties, without consent of the other. In 
* 1906 these two Acts were consolidated, forming the 
^ Conciliation and Labour Act of 1906, in which form they 
are still operative. 

In 1906 a bitter and prolonged strike closed the coal 
mines of Lethbridge, Alberta. The Deputy Minister of 
Labour, Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, succeeded in bringing 
^ about a settlement, but not until much public hardship 
r^ had developed. The failure of the existing Conciliation 
Act to prevent this strike revealed the need of further 
legislation, and the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act 
of 1907 was a direct result of the sentiment thus aroused. 

This Act was amended in 1910, and again in 1918, but 
since the latter date no alteration or addition has been 
made, although some changes are contemplated at the 
approaching session of Parliament. 

It should also be noted that one item of the agenda of 
the National Industrial Conference which met at Ottawa 
September 15-20, 1919, on invitation of the Government 



of Canada was, " Consideration of the question of the 
desirability of unifying and co-ordinating the existing 
labour laws of the Dominion Parliament and of the pro- 
vincial legislatures, and the consideration of any new labour 
laws which are deemed necessary." On this subject the 
Conference unanimously adopted a resolution recom- 
mending the appointment of a board to study and report 
on uniformity in the laws of the Dominion and the 
provinces. 

While the Canadian Industrial Disputes Investigation 
Act of 1907 applies specifically only to transportation 
companies, other public utilities and mines, it may also be 
invoked for settlement of disputes in other industries 
on application of both parties to a dispute, that is, by 
mutual agreement. During the war, industries supply- 
ing war materials were brought under the action of the 
provisions previously applying only to transportation 
companies, other public utilities and mines. The prin- 
cipal provisions of the Act are as follows: 

On application in due form by either party to a dispute 
in an industry covered by the provisions of the Act, the 
Minister of Labour is required to appoint a Board of 
Reference consisting of one nominee of each party and a 
chairman selected by the two. The Minister of Labour 
has exercised a certain freedom of judgment as to whether 
or not the application falls under and meets the require- 
ments of the law, and his right to do so is expressly 
affirmed in the Amendment of 1918. No person having 
a direct pecuniary interest in the dispute may be ap- 
pointed. To prevent a deadlock, in case all other pro- 
visions of the Act governing applications for a Board 
have been complied with, but where either or both of 
the parties fail to agree on nominations, the Minister 
of Labour may both select and appoint a Board. 

An application for a Board must be made in writing 
by a party to the dispute, and must be accompanied by a 
statement setting forth the parties to the dispute, its 
nature and cause, an estimate of the number of persons 
affected, an account of the efforts that have been made 
by the parties to adjust it, and by a statutory declaration 
that 

"failing an adjustment of the dispute or reference 
thereof by the Minister to a Board, to the best of 
the knowledge and belief of the declarant, a lockout 



or strike will be declared, and (except where the 
application is made by an employer in consequence 
of an intended change in wages or hours proposed 
by said employer) that the necessary authority to 
declare such lockout or strike has been obtained; 
or where a dispute directly affects employees in 
more than one province and such employees are 
members of a Trade Union having a general com- 
mittee authorized to carry on negotiations in dis- 
putes between employers and employees and so 
recognized by the employer, a statutory declaration 
by the chairman or president and by the secretary 
of such committee setting forth that, failing an 
adjustment of the dispute or the reference thereof by 
the Minister to a Board, to the best of the knowledge 
and belief of the declarants, a strike will be declared, 
that the dispute has been the subject of negotiations 
between the committee and the employer, that all 
efforts to obtain a satisfactory settlement have 
failed, and that there is no reasonable hope of 
securing a settlement by further negotiations." 

The Act expressly provides that applications for Boards 
of Reference may be made by Trade Unions, and specifies 
the manner in which such applications shall be legally 
presented. 

The Act requires that 

"Employers and employees shall give at least 
thirty days notice of an intended change affecting 
conditions of employment with respect to wages 
or hours, and in every case where a dispute has been 
referred to a Board, until the dispute has been finally 
dealt with by the Board, neither of the parties nor 
the employees affected shall alter the conditions of 
employment with respect to wages and hours." 

In this connection it is also provided that 

" If in the opinion of the Board either party used 
this or any other provision of this Act for the pur- 
pose of unjustly maintaining given conditions of 
affairs through delay . . . such party shall be . . . 
liable to the same penalties as are imposed for a 
violation of the preceding section." 

By the Amendment of 1918 it was provided that 

"Where in any industry a strike or lockout has 
occurred, and in the public interest or for any other 
reason it seems to the Minister expedient, the Minis- 
5 



ter, on the application of any municipality interested, 
or of the mayor, reeve, or other head officer, or acting 
head officer thereof, or of his own motion may, without 
application of either of the parties to the dispute, strike 
or lockout, whether it involves one or more employers 
or employees in the employ of one or more employers, 
constitute a Board of Conciliation and Investigation 
under this Act in respect of any dispute, or strike or 
lockout, or may in any such case, if it seems to him 
expedient, either with or without an application from 
any interested party, recommend to the Governor in 
Council the appointment of some person or persons as 
commissioner or commissioners under the provisions 
of the Inquiries Act to inquire into the dispute, strike 
or lockout, or into any matters or circumstances 
connected therewith. 

"The Minister, where he deems it expedient, may, 
either upon or without any application in that behalf, 
make or cause to be made any inquiries he thinks fit 
regarding industrial matters, and may cause such 
steps to be taken by his department and the officers 
thereof as seem calculated to secure industrial peace 
and to promote conditions favourable to settlement 
of disputes." 

The Board of Reference fully investigates the dispute, 
and no strike or lockout may legally occur before or during 
such investigation. Boards are given power to summon 
witnesses, administer oaths, and to compel witnesses to 
testify and produce books and other evidence in the same 
manner as courts of record in civil cases. 

If settlement of a dispute is reached by the parties 
during the course of its reference to a Board, a brief 
memorandum drawn up by the Board and signed by the 
parties is filed with the Minister of Labour. If settlement 
is not arrived at during the reference, the Board is re- 
quired to make a full written report to the Minister of 
Labour, setting forth the details of its investigation and 
its recommendation for settlement of the dispute. The 
report is filed in the office of the Registrar and copies are 
sent free of charge to the parties and to any newspapers in 
Canada which apply for them. The Minister may also 
distribute copies in such manner as he considers desirable, 
as a means of securing compliance with the Board's recom- 
mendation. In addition to this, for the information of 
Parliament and the public, a copy of the report must be 



published without delay in the Labour Gazette* and be 
included in the annual report of the Department of 
Labour to the Governor General. 

If a question shall arise concerning the interpretation 
of a recommendation or agreement drawn up by the Board, 
the Minister of Labour may cause the Chairman of the 
Board to reconvene the Board and make a report on the 
question. 

It cannot be too strongly emphasized that the Act of 
1907 is not a compulsory arbitration law. While the Act 
undertook to carry the element of compulsion a step 
farther than the Conciliation and Labour Act of 1906, 
it did not alter the principle of voluntary adjustment on 
which that law was founded. 

A Canadian official, who was engaged in the settlement 
of the Alberta strikes out of which the demand for the 
law arose, and who was one of its authors, said: 

"In the dispute in Alberta referred to in the 
report (i.e., the one leading to the adoption of the 
Act), we spent nearly a week trying to get the 
parties together. We spent nearly another week 
finding out from each what they were prepared to do. 
Meanwhile, settlers and others were freezing in 
their homes. We had no powers other than that of a 
voluntary conciliator to fall back upon. Had we 
had legislation providing powers of compulsory 
investigation, we could have effected in two days 
what took nearly two weeks. It was this experience, 
and similar experiences in other strikes which made 
us seek to get from Parliament powers of compulsory 
investigation, which meant to labour, power at the 
expense of the State, and with the machinery of the 
State back of it, to choose its own investigator, to 
summon witnesses, to compel the production of 
documents, to take evidence under oath, and to 
give to the public the fullest possible kind of a view 
of its case, including any injustices under which it 
might be suffering. This is the really important 
compulsory investigation feature of the Act, not the 
penalties which we laid to strikes and lockouts." 

In pursuit of this aim, and to avoid difficulties involved 
in compulsory arbitration, the machinery was changed to 
consist of Boards of Conciliation and Investigation and, 
although it was the duty of these Boards to do all in their 

*An amendment to the Act declares that this requirement is met it the 
Labour Gazette publishes a summary of the report. 

7 



power to effect conciliations, and to offer recommendations 
of settlement, compulsion was restricted to their investiga- 
tory function. Compliance with the recommendations 
of the Reference Boards is optional; the weight of public 
opinion alone is relied on to make settlements effective. 

The only provision giving mandatory power to the find- 
ing of a Board is that if, at any time before or after a 
Board has made its report and recommendation, both 
parties to the dispute agree in writing to be bound by the 
recommendation of the Board in the same manner as 
parties are bound in the case of a reference to arbitration 
on the order of a court of record, the recommendation 
shall be made a rule of the court on application of either 
party, and shall be enforceable in like manner. Canadian 
courts, however, have hesitated to regard a recommenda- 
tion in case of such an agreement as constituting a rule 
of court. 

Public Opinion the Backbone of the Act 

The commonly accepted statement that the Canadian 
Industrial Disputes Investigation Act of 1907 was based 
on Australian labor legislation is historically incorrect, 
and tends to give a mistaken conception of its nature. 
Indeed, this erroneous view has not been without influence 
in the development of a hostile attitude toward the Cana- 
dian Act, which, unlike the Australian legislation, avoids 
compulsion, as far as possible, and instead is frankly 
based on an appeal to the power of public opinion. 

Hon. F. A. Acland, Deputy Minister of Labour for the 
Dominion of Canada, says: 

"The theory of the Act is that the Board's 
findings, being based on what is presumed to have 
been a fair and impartial investigation, will bring an 
informed public opinion to bear on the matters which 
have been in dispute, and that either of the dis- 
putants who is unreasonable in his attitude will 
thus be induced to yield a point and accept the 
recommendations of the Board, rather than fly in 
the face of a public opinion which might be ex- 
pected to sustain the view of the Board; acceptance 
of the findings, however, no matter how urgent 
the apparent advantage or necessity, is not legally 
compulsory." 

The text of the Act is brief, and makes no effort to 
exhaust either the scope of its provisions or the details of 



their application. In the first important litigation to 
which it gave rise, and which occurred while the general 
sentiment in accord with which it was formulated was 
still active, the decision of the Court contains these words: 

"The legislation is tentative, broad and bene- 
ficial, and it cannot be expected to cover at once all 
the little difficulties which may be imagined to 
arise." 

Much, therefore, was left to be determined by de- 
partmental decisions. 

Administrative Interpretations 

The Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the 
administration of the Act, thus far has taken the stand 
that the penalty provided for strikes or lockouts prior to 
investigations will be imposed only where prosecution is 
initiated by one or the other of the disputants. As a 
matter of fact, although there have been many "illegal" 
strikes since the x^ct became effective, the penalty seldom 
has been imposed. This fact has led to the rather hasty 
assumption in the United States that the compulsory 
feature of the Act is a failure. Thus the author of one of 
the most widely circulated studies of the subject declares: 

"The Canadian Act is a compulsory one 
mainly because penalties are provided for the calling 
of such illegal strikes, and the essential test of any 
compulsory law is the extent to which it is enforced. 
Yet it is in this very important aspect that the Act 
has failed as a compulsory measure." 

While this is to some extent true, it fails correctly to 
reflect the spirit and intention of the Canadian Act, 
which should be interpreted in the light of its original 
purpose. 

Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King has said: 

"The Government has never laid particular 
stress on the penalty end of it. The penalty part 
. . . has always been treated much in the same 
light as penalty for trespass." 

Examination of the reasons for such opposition to the 
Act as exists in Canada reveals that only in theoretical 
discussions do they rest on the failure to impose penalties. 
On the other hand, one at least of the instances in which a 
penalty was imposed is prominent among the sources of 

Q 



discontent. This was a case in which an agent of the 
United Mine Workers was fined for paying strike relief to 
union members who had violated the law. 

One employer has been fined for an illegal lockout, and 
a few union officials have been fined for inciting strikes, 
but no effort has been made to penalize a large body of 
men for striking. The conclusion seems justified, there- 
fore, that criticisms of the Act in the United States on the 
basis of its failure to impose penalties, arise from a mis- 
understanding of its spirit and intention. 

A procedure which appears to be responsible for much 
of the opposition to the Act on the part of organized labor 
in Canada is the use made of the discretion which it 
allows to the Minister of Labour to grant or refuse Boards 
of Investigation. Boards have been refused in a number of 
cases where the workers felt that they had a real grievance. 
The Amendment of 1918, however, expressly conferring 
this authority on the Minister of Labour is in the nature 
of a confirmation of his actual practice. In strikes involv- 
ing several employers or several unions where these 
employers or unions could not agree on a single repre- 
sentative, the Minister of Labour has declined to appoint 
a Board. A strike involving many companies is regarded 
by the Minister of Labour as a separate dispute for each 
company and, where the various interests agree on a 
single nomination, although one Board is appointed to 
investigate the whole trouble, it is legally considered that 
there are as many separate Boards as there are inde- 
pendent employers.* 

An instructive instance is that of the Thetford mines 
dispute in 1915. The facts in this case were discussed at 
the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, which met at 
Toronto in September, 1916, and was a factor in the 
subsequent action of that Congress in calling for abroga- 
tion of the Act. The chairman of the Congress described 
the situation as follows: 

"There are five companies controlling the 
asbestos mines of Thetford. After the miners made 
an application for a Board under the Industrial 
Disputes Investigation Act, they were informed 
through a letter from the Department that the in- 
dustry in which they were employed came under 

*An amendment to meet this difficulty is being prepared for presentation to 
Parliament. 

10 



the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, and that 
it would be a criminal act on their part to go out on 
strike. The letter stated that there was not the 
slightest doubt as to the Act applying to the Thet- 
ford mines, and the inference was that the provisions 
of the Act dealing with penalties for violations 
would be rigidly enforced if a strike was declared. 
While that attitude was assumed by the Minister of 
Labour, the men were prevented from taking any 
further action in their own interests, other than 
complying with the Law. Suddenly, however, the 
Department switches and points out that there are 
five companies controlling the mines at Thetford in 
which the applicants for a Board were employed, 
and that, because the owners of the mines could not 
agree upon a representative for the Board under the 
Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, a Board 
could not be appointed." 

The Minister of Labour, who was present at the 
Congress, in reply said: 

"There were five companies to deal with when 
the request to appoint a Board was made. I hold 
that the Act does not lend itself to the conditions 
where there are several employers not agreeing. 
We had a case in Cobalt where there were forty-two 
companies and I refused to grant a Board when 
application was made by the miners' union. I 
would refuse today." 

A delegate then inquired if the men had the " legal 
right to strike after a Board had been refused because the 
five companies at Thetford mines could not agree upon a 
representative." The Minister answered that the men 
could not legally strike, but were compelled to resort to 
the provisions of the Act and apply for the appointment of 
a Board to deal with each company. Another delegate 
asked the Minister if a Board would have been granted 
each group of employees in each mine if they had applied 
separately. The Minister replied that he would not 
answer the question, because such a situation had not 
arisen. This, then, appears to be a fixed ruling of the 
Department of Labour, and one which the workers believe 
operates to their disadvantage. 

During this same discussion of the Thetford mines dis- 
pute, the Minister of Labour said: 

"At Thetford mines there were two unions, the 
local union being there before the local ot the 
11 



Western Federation of Miners. ... I have refused 
to appoint Boards before when there were two 
unions quarrelling among themselves as to what 
should be done." 

Although contrary to previous practice, in at least two 
notable instances it appears to be the latest ruling of the 
Department of Labour that Boards will not be appointed 
where two unions exist unless they are in agreement with 
each other. Both of these rulings are purely adminis- 
trative and do not arise directlv from the provisions of the 
Act. 

Operation of Act — Difficulties and Objections 

The operation of the Act has shown that the opinion of 
the chairman usually controls the finding of the Board. 
This arises naturally from the fact that employers and 
employees each select a representative favorable to their 
respective cause, and it has gradually come to pass that, in 
almost all cases, these two members of the Board disagree 
and the decision rests with the chairman. On this ac- 
count it has even been suggested that, in the case of im- 
portant disputes involving large public issues, the position 
of the chairman be strengthened by appointment by the 
Minister of Labour of three outside representatives. It is 
believed that decisions of a Board so constituted would 
inspire greater public confidence. 

In some instances where the report is distinctly favor- 
able to one side, the representative of the other makes 
use of his legal right to put in a minority report. Mr. 
Carl H. Mote, in a recent volume, says that even 

"public opinion is futile to avert a strike, par- 
ticularly in those cases where there is a divided re- 
port of an investigating committee." 

The operation of the Act has further developed the 
fact that Boards are most successful when least formal, and 
particularly when least legalistic in their attitude and 
procedure. Boards of which prominent jurists have been 
chairmen have notably failed. The difficulty of securing 
acceptable chairmen is very great. Dr. Victor S. Clark, 
in his investigation for the U. S. Bureau of Labor of the 
working of the Canadian Act, says: 

"The tendency is to select the same Board mem- 
bers repeatedly so that several Boards have been 
12 



identical in different disputes, and one chairman — 
a professor of economics — has served acceptably 
on eleven of the twenty-eight Boards that have been 
established. ... A judge who organizes a Board 
after the fashion of a court, sets it up on a dais, 
takes testimony according to legal rules of evidence, 
enforces legal technicalities, and checks up his 
witnesses by stenographic proceedings, so far as 
Canadian experience goes, leaves the parties at the 
end of their negotiations farther apart than at the 
beginning, and crystallizes tentative issues into 
insolvable difficulties." 

Dr. Clark, in the same report, quotes an experienced 
Board chairman as follows: 

"The most important work is often done out- 
side of regular sessions of the Board. We talk to the 
different parties individually and get to a mutual 
understanding that way. We never allow the dis- 
putants to leave important matters to the Board. 
We insist that they themselves shall agree on main 
points." 

The informality of procedure is furthered by the Amend- 
ment of 1918, which provides that the Minister of Labour, 
at any stage of the proceedings, may introduce matters 
other than those appearing in the application and state- 
ment, if, in his opinion, it is necessary in order that the 
Board may deal satisfactorily with the dispute. 

Yet another source of difficulty that has arisen in the 
operation of the Act, and not directly from its provisions, 
but apparently contrary to them, is the delay which may 
occur in the appointment of a Board. The Act says that 
the Minister of Labour 

"shall, within fifteen days from the date on which 
the application is received, establish such Board 
under his hand and seal of office, if satisfied that the 
provisions of this Act apply." 

For the nine-year period ended March 31, 1916, 191 
applications for Boards were made, and 169 were estab- 
lished. Of this number only 60 were established within 
the 15 days. In 14 cases, between 46 and 61 days elapsed 
between the application and the establishment of the 
Board; in 21 cases, between 31 and 46 days; in 66 cases, 
between 16 and 31 days. 

13 



Commenting on this phase of the administration of the 
Act, an officer of an international railway union, referring 
to a specific strike, is reported to have said: 

"Our case was begun by notice of a revision of 
contracts October 1st. The Board met December 
3d and the decision was given December 20th, 
allowing the company over two and one-half months 
to prepare for a strike." 

Dr. Clark, from whose report this quotation is taken, 
adds: 

"From the men's point of view this particular 
delay was peculiarly unfortunate, as a financial crisis 
bringing on a period of unemployment occurred in 
the interim." 

The Act also states that employers or employees shall 
give at least thirty days notice of an intended change 
affecting conditions of employment with respect to wages 
or hours, and provides a penalty for disregard of this 
provision. Emphasizing yet further the intention of the 
Act to avoid delay, the clause allowing this period of 
thirty days adds: 

"But if in the opinion of the Board either party 
uses this or any other provision of this Act for the 
purpose of unjustly maintaining a given condition 
of affairs through delay, and the Board so reports 
to the Minister, such party shall be guilty of an 
offense and liable to the same penalties," etc. 

In spite of this provision no complaint among workmen 
is more common than that wages and hours are changed 
without notice, and are followed by delays in appointment 
of Boards. 

Recent experience under the law undoubtedly is 
reflected in the amendments that are now being proposed.* 

One of these amendments seeks to prevent the possi- 
bility of a minority of members in a Trade Union, or a 
minority of workmen affected where they are not organ- 
ized, from making an application for a Board. 

Another proposed amendment would make it impossible 
for an unlawful organization to claim protection under 
the Act by contending that it is a Trade Union within the 
meaning of the Act. 

*April 30, 1920. 

14 



Yet another amendment is proposed that would extend 
the time during which a strike is illegal until a copy of a 
Board's report has been delivered to both parties through 
the Registrar. This would prevent workmen from claim- 
ing that their obligations under the Act had been ful- 
filled before the employers had an opportunity to know 
the contents of a Board's report or to decide whether or 
not they could accept its recommendations. 

An amendment that has not yet taken definite form 
would make it possible for the Minister of Labour, at his 
option, to establish one Board to deal with a dispute 
that affects employers and employees in several plants 
of a given industry. If the employers affected agree to 
the establishment of a Board it can be done under the 
present Act, but if the employers disagree and will not 
nominate a representative on the Board, then the Depart- 
ment has no alternative but to establish one Board for 
each company affected, a procedure which has been found 
expensive and undesirable. 

It is clear that these proposed amendments seek to 
correct minor defects in the law and to strengthen its 
central principle of preventing disputes until an investi- 
gation shall have been made and the public informed of 
the merits of the case. None of them seek to overthrow 
the law or alter its substance. 



Statistical Data 

The number of applications for Boards each year since 
the adoption of the Act shows a gradual decline until 
the latter years of the war, during which conditions were 
not normal and the data concerning which calls for special 
analysis and separate treatment.* 





1907 
9mos. 


1908 


1909 


1910 


1911 


1912 


1913 


1914 


1915 


1916 

3mos. 


Total 


Applications . . 


25 


27 


22 


28 


21 


16 


18 


18 


15 


1 


191 


Boards refused . . 


3 


2 


1 


5 


5 





3 





3 





22 


Boards granted . . 


22 


25 


21 


23 


16 


16 


15 


18 


12 


1 


169 


Strike not averted 


1 


1 


4 


4 


4 


3 


1 


1 


1 





20 



*In 1919 there were 95 Boards in operation, of which 17 were operating at 
one time. Whether this reflects an abnormal condition due to the war, or is 
the beginning of a more general use of the provisions of the Act, can be de- 
termined only in the light of further experience. 

15 



These figures show that in the first year of the opera- 
tion of the Act only three applications for Boards were re- 
fused, in the second year two, in the third year one, in 
the fourth year five, in the fifth year five. The table also 
shows that in the fourth and fifth years there were four 
failures each year to avert or end a strike after a Board 
had been appointed. That is to say, in 1910 and 1911 
there were nine failures each year to effect settlements in 
disputes for which applications for Boards had been 
made, and for the period 1909-1912 eleven applications 
were refused and fifteen of the Boards granted failed to 
settle the disputes. The sharp decline in number of 
applications began in 1912, immediately after this large 
number of failures. It should be noted in this connection 
that the period 1909-1912 was one in which the inter- 
national labor organizations were pressing for control of 
organized labor in Canada. It was also a period of great 
industrial activity. The subsequent slowing down of 
work, coupled with the shifting of labor to munitions in- 
dustries after the outbreak of the war, with the intro- 
duction of patriotic influences, may explain in considerable 
part the falling off in applications. 

It is also apparent from the above figures that in 88% 
of the disputes referred to Boards, strikes or lockouts were 
averted or ended. If the number of applications refused 
is added to the number of cases in which strikes or lock- 
outs were not prevented, as also indicating failure on the 
part of the Act to meet the situation, the proportion of 
successful conciliations is reduced to 78%. These figures, 
taken from reports of the Labour Department of the 
Dominion of Canada, make no reference to the strikes and 
lockouts occurring during this period in which no applica- 
tion was made under the Act for a Board of Investiga- 
tion. The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, in a 
report published September, 1917, covering almost the 
entire period of ten years of the operation of the Act, from 
March 22, 1907, to December 31, 1916, states that 222 dis- 
putes resulting in strikes and lockouts occurred within the 
jurisdiction of the Act. The number of employees affected 
in these disputes was 100,608 and the time lost 4,838,647 
working days. In 44 of these, involving 44,086 employees 
and a time loss of 3,665,969 working days, application was 
made for Investigating Boards under the Act. In 18 of 
the disputes the strike or lockout did not occur until after 
a Board made its investigation and report, while 204 strikes 

16 



occurred either before or pending Board action, and were 
thus illegal under the Act; of this latter number, 178 
strikes or lockouts involving 56,522 employees and a 
time loss of 1,172,678 days were instituted without either 
party to the dispute making application for a Board. . 

The number of applications for Boards under the 
section of the Act which allows voluntary application for 
Boards in other than public service industries and mines, 
may be regarded as a measure of public confidence in the 
Act. According to the same report, 691 strikes and 
lockouts, affecting 149,812 employees with a time loss of 
3,254,332 working days, occurred in the period March 22, 
1907, to December 31, 1916, in industries falling under 
this section of the Act. Of this number, in only 26, or 
about 4%, were applications made for a Board, and in only 
12 of these, affecting 5,534 employees, were Boards con- 
stituted. That is to say, where the Act was left to be 
voluntarily invoked, only about \$i% of the disputes 
occurring were referred to Boards. 

Reviewing the operation of the Act as thus outlined, 
it would appear that where Boards have been actually 
constituted they have been reasonably successful in ending 
or averting strikes or lockouts. Sir George Askwith, 
who was sent by the British Government in 1912 to in- 
vestigate the workings of the Act, reached the following 
conclusions: 

"Where it was frankly adopted as a means of 
preventing disputes, it has worked extremely well, 
but where for reasons, some apparent and others 
which can only be guessed at, its introduction has 
been resented, it has not succeeded to the same 
extent. In such cases where, by the imposition of 
penalties, efforts have been made to enforce the Act, 
the results have not been satisfactory." 

Since the foregoing figures were compiled, the statistics 
of strikes for 1917 have been published by the Department 
of Labour for the Dominion of Canada. These appear at 
first glance greatly to strengthen the position of those who 
assert that the Act has failed to promote industrial peace. 
A closer analysis of these 1917 strikes, however, confirms 
a more liberal estimate of the usefulness of the Act. 

The number of strikes originating in 1917 was 141, and 
7 were carried over from 1916, making a total of 148. 

17 



The following table shows the number of strikes, the 
number of workers involved, and the time lost for a series 
of years. 



Strikes in existence during the year 


Employees involved 


Time loss in 
working days 


1914 44 

1915 43 

1916 75 

1917 148 


8,678 

9,140 

21,157 

48,329 


430,054 

106,149 

208,277 

1,134,970 



Of the 148 strikes in 1917 

89, or 60%, were settled by direct negotiations 
between the parties; 

13, or about 9%, were settled by conciliation or 
mediation agencies other than those provided by the 
Act; 

11, or about 7%, were settled by arbitration 
without appealing to the provisions of the Act; 

4, or 2.7%, were settled by Boards. 

Two of the most serious strikes of the year occurred in 
the mining industry, and were thus direct violations of the 
Act. On January 16, 5,870 coal miners and coke oven 
workers in Alberta and British Columbia struck, with a 
time loss of 42,000 days. On April 1st, in the same dis- 
trict, 7,475 mine workers struck, and the strike did not 
terminate until July 3, when the Dominion Government 
appointed a Director of Coal Operations to take control 
of the mines. The time loss involved in this strike was 
512,075 days. 

This appears to be a disquieting record. Nevertheless, 
it should be noted that the greater part of the time loss 
occurred in the mining industry, and that the United Mine 
Workers have been among the leading opponents of the 
Act almost since its enactment. The remainder of the 
148 strikes were very small, about 43% involving not more 
than 100 workers, and lasting less than 5 days. It thus 
appears that, under the strain of war, and in a period of 
intense industrial activity, strikes in important industries 
or involving large numbers of workers occurred only in 
the coal mines, under a leadership hostile to the Act. It 
should also be pointed out that four disputes submitted to 
Boards in the month of January, 1918, included a very 

18 



important railroad controversy, in which instance a 
disastrous strike was averted. In view of these facts the 
conclusion seems warranted that the Act is a force work- 
ing toward industrial peace. 

Attitude of Labor Toward the Act 

For the first two years of the operation of the Act but 
little opposition appeared; but from that time to the 
present, hostility among organized labor unions has 
steadily increased. This opposition is most outspoken on 
the part of the international labor organizations. The 
United Mine Workers of America, at their Indianapolis con- 
vention, January, 1909, endorsed the following resolution: 

"That we, the delegates from Canada, having 
had almost two years' experience with said bill, 
herewith advise our brothers on this side of the line 
to oppose any such measure of like nature to the 
utmost of their powers." 

The Legislative Board of the Brotherhood of Loco- 
motive Engineers in November, 1916, passed a resolution: 

"That this Board do all in its power to have the 
Industrial Disputes Investigation Act wiped oft* the 
statute books." 

The President of the Order of Railway Conductors of 
America, writing on the subject of this Act in the Pro- 
ceedings of the American Society of Political Science, in 
January, 1917, said: 

"It only succeeded in breeding an almost uni- 
versal disgust of, and contempt for, legal machinery 
designed to settle troubles that should be settled by 
the parties thereto. . . . The Railway Brother- 
hoods are almost the only large class ot employees 
who in the Dominion have scrupulously conformed 
to the Provisions of this Act, and they have done 
this at an immense disadvantage to themselves. 
... It has been demonstrated time and again (and 
out of this demonstration has grown the attitude of 
the laborers toward this Act) that the period pro- 
vided for investigation during which men must 
remain at work is almost invariably utilized by the 
employer, regardless of the spirit or letter of the Act, 
to reinforce himself against efforts of his men to 
better their condition and at the end of the period 
he coolly repudiates the finding of the Commission." 
10 



On the other hand, the Provincial Workers' Association, 
an organization of miners in Nova Scotia not associated 
with the international organization, has "co-operated 
cordially with the Government and with employers to 
make it [the Act] a success; and the general officers of 
the Union commend its influence." But no recent 
utterance from them on this subject is available. 

At the convention of the Trades and Labour Congress 
of Canada held at Ottawa September 17, 1917, feeling ran 
so high as to give rise to a spirited protest against the 
appearance of the Minister of Labour on the platform of 
the convention on the opening day. The report of the 
Fraternal Delegates appointed by this convention to the 
American Federation of Labor Convention at Buffalo, in 
speaking of the Act, said: 

"A demand was made for the repeal of the 
Lemieux Industrial Disputes Law, because it was a 
source of advantage to the employers and hampered 
the employees. This Act seeks to prevent strikes 
and lockouts in certain occupations by prohibiting 
a man's right to stop work, and making it a crime 
for a union to provide its members with food while 
out on strike. This, coupled with the absence of an 
eight-hour law for Government contract work, 
made the work of the executive officers unusually 
difficult and created bitter feeling among the 
involved workers." 

The rank and file of Canadian labor express little 
opposition to the principles of the Act, although some 
modifications are desired; the official attitude of the 
international labor organizations in Canada, however, is 
increasingly hostile. 

The State of Colorado has a law which is not dis- 
similar in principle to the Canadian Act. 

The American Federation of Labor, in its report of the 
proceedings of the Buffalo Convention, in November, 
1917, states that: 

"Every possible assistance was rendered to the 
organized workers of Colorado in their effort to 
secure the repeal of the Industrial Commission Act, 
which provides for compulsory investigation before 
the inauguration of a strike or lockout in that State." 
20 



This statement may be taken as fairly indicative of the 
attitude of the American Federation of Labor toward 
the Canadian Act as it has been administered. 

It should not be forgotten that incidents arising in the 
course of investigations, while actually of minor import- 
ance, cause great bitterness in the ranks of workers, how- 
ever trivial and however casually related to the actual 
operation of the i^ct. 

Thus, in the opinion of the Fraternal Delegate to the 
Buffalo Convention of the American Federation of Labor, 
reference is made to a court decision in Nova Scotia in 
1912 in which a single union official was convicted of 
awarding strike benefits to men striking illegally and when 
four miners, employed by a small coal company, were 
fined forty dollars each. This was done by action of a 
Provincial Court, but the incident appears never to have 
been forgotten or forgiven by organized labor. The same 
may be said of the refusal of the Department to grant 
Boards in the Thetford mines dispute. 

Another incident, constantly quoted by laboring men, 
is that of a decision by a Board in a coal-mining strike in 
Nova Scotia which the workers claimed was interpreted 
in a manner not in accordance with their understanding 
of it when they accepted the decision. So influential are 
these minor incidents that it would not be far from the 
truth to say that upon scarcely more than five or six such 
insignificant events the bitterness of feeling, if not the 
substantial reason for the opposition to the Act on the 
part of labor in Canada, rests. 

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that, whether or 
not the penalties of the Act are enforceable against workers, 
the very existence of the Act and the manner of its 
administration is felt by them to hamper the operations of 
the unions, and particularly to limit use of the strike to 
enforce demands. 

This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that, of the 
recommendations of Boards since the enactment of the 
Act, 90% favored the employees and granted a major 
part of their demands. Also, more than 90% of the 
Boards have been instituted on application of employees. 
It is not, therefore, dissatisfaction in general with the 
recommendations of the Boards that can account for 
organized labor's opposition. This must arise from the 

21 



general operation of the Act and the effect of its continued 
existence on the statute books, which deprives striking 
employees who have not applied for a Board of Investiga- 
tion, of the moral support of the community. But per- 
haps the fundamental reason for this opposition, not to 
speak of possible antipathy to certain officials, is the fact 
that the settlement of disputes apart from the manipula- 
tion of the union leaders, tends to weaken their hold on 
the rank and file, and their relative importance in gaining 
concessions for their followers. 

It is a noteworthy fact that the representatives of 
employees on the Committee of the Canadian National 
Industrial Conference which considered the recommenda- 
tions of the Royal Commission on Industrial Relations, 
passed a resolution recommending, " that employees of 
all Government bodies should be entitled to the right of 
appeal under the Industrial Disputes Act so long as that 
Act remains upon the statute books of Canada." 



Attitude of Employers Toward the Act 

It is more difficult to secure frank and definite expres- 
sions of opinion from employers in Canada. This reticence 
may be partly caused by a belief that if they express strong 
approval of it such an attitude may increase the feeling 
of organized labor that the Act operates in the interest of 
the employing class. 

A report by G. M. Murray, Secretary of the Canadian 
Manufacturers' Association, made in 1909, after two years 
operation of the Act, is not at all enthusiastic as to the 
benefits derived from it. At that time 49 disputes had 
been referred to Boards under provisions of the Act. In 
regard to these cases, Mr. Murray says: 

"The Labour Department is careful to point out 
that accompanying each application was a sworn 
statement to the effect that a strike or lockout 
(they might have omitted all mention of lockouts, 
for there were none threatened) would take place in 
the event of a settlement not being reached. But 
the Act requires such a statement before a Board 
can be granted and it may well be argued that em- 
ployees who have nothing to lose and possibly some- 
thing to gain from an investigation, will foment 
trouble and secure from their union a snap verdict to 
22 



strike, simply in order that their application for a 
Board may be made in proper form, whereas without 
the machinery afforded by the Act, the thought of 
striking would never enter their minds." 

This report also complains that the Act 

"is readily enforceable as against the employer, 
for if he locks out illegally, he can be promptly 
prosecuted and fined, but it is unenforceable as 
against the employees, for not only is it impractica- 
ble to institute proceedings against each of several 
hundred, or perhaps several thousand employees, 
but it would be the height of folly for an employer to 
put the law into operation against even a single 
offender. What he wants is to get his men back at 
work, not to put them in jail, and the surest way to 
defeat his own purpose would be to prosecute or 
persecute the fomenters of the trouble." 

Not a few employers believe that compulsory incorpora- 
tion of all labor organizations would greatly strengthen 
the Act at this point. Some employers would even have 
the compulsion which now applies only to the investiga- 
tion made applicable also to the award. Such a change 
would, however, amount to a new law operating on a 
different principle. In general, employers are apt to feel 
that the Act binds them but does not bind the worker. 

Although Mr. Murray's statement was made only two 
years after the Act went into effect, it undoubtedly 
reflects the general opinion of the same group of em- 
ploying interests today. 



Summary and Conclusions 

In conclusion, the following points appear to be sub- 
stantiated by the evidence that is available: 

(1) The commonly expressed opinion, that the failure 
to impose penalties for illegal strikes is the principal 
weakness of the Act and the cause of its comparatively 
infrequent application, is not borne out. The position 
taken by the Department of Labour in regard to initiating 
prosecutions for infractions of the Act, in which they 
leave this to be done by prosecution of the aggrieved 
party, appears to be the only practicable attitude, and 
has probably saved the Act from early repeal. The 

23 



penalty always exists as a possibility, and the entire 
attitude of organized labor indicates that it feels the 
restraint which the Act exercises. This restraint, how- 
ever, arises quite as much from the mere fact of declaring 
the strike illegal under the Act as from the penalty pro- 
vision. The Act might be quite as strong if the penalty 
provision were repealed. The few cases in which penalties 
have been imposed are responsible for much opposition 
to the Act. 

(2) The operation of the Act has signally failed to 
inspire complete confidence of workers. It has led them 
to believe that the Act was not immune from legalistic- 
manipulation, and that under it their rights or claims may 
be thwarted, not on reasonable grounds, but by legal 
technicalities. As evidence of this they cite the adminis- 
trative delay which, although contrary to the spirit of the 
Act, has occurred perhaps in the majority of the disputes 
that have been referred under it; also the refusal of the 
Department to appoint Boards in a number of instances 
where the men felt that they had real grievances, par- 
ticularly where two or more employers, or two or more 
unions involved in an individual dispute, cannot agree on 
a single representative. As the operation of the Act has 
largely covered a period during which the international 
labor organizations have been struggling for a foothold 
in Canada, sometimes in sharp opposition to the estab- 
lished local trades unions, this ruling has caused much 
discontent, the workers feeling that it interferes with 
what they believe to be their right to organize. 

(3) The requirement of the Act that a Board may not 
be applied for unless one or the other of the disputants 
makes a statutory declaration that a strike or lockout will 
otherwise occur, has not operated advantageously, and 
is no doubt chargeable with some of the illegal strikes 
that have occurred. A group of organized employees 
cannot declare that a strike will occur as the result of 
any dispute without an official vote of their organization. 
Such a vote is not obtained without considerable effort, 
and having been obtained the men are but little inclined 
to forget the authority which it gives them to declare a 
strike. It is difficult to see what particular strength this 
provision adds to the Act, but it is quite easy to see the 
difficulty which it occasions. The employer in order to 
make application for a Board must make a statutory 

24 



declaration that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, 
his firm will otherwise declare a lockout, and few em- 
ployers are ordinarily willing to make such a declaration, 
for by so doing they immediately forego the good will and 
backing of the public. 

(4) Owing to the fact that incidental administrative 
rulings tend to become fixed as precedents, and further 
that, especially among workers, incidental causes of 
irritation are held in memory for many years, opposition 
to the Act is cumulative and tends to become stronger, 
despite the fact that its operation may have been generally 
beneficial to the workers themselves. 

(5) The existence of the Act on the statute books has 
acted as a wholesome restraint both on employers and 
employees through a period of great industrial unrest; 
it has served in some degree to crystallize public opinion 
and in particular cases to make it effective for maintenance 
of industrial peace. 

(6) Investigations have been most successful when 
most informally conducted; introduction of legal ma- 
chinery is almost certain to destroy their usefulness. 

(7) Where investigations have been fairly conducted, 
with no unfortunate administrative irritations, and with 
tactful, informal procedure, resultant recommendations 
have been almost universally backed by public opinion 
and accepted by the disputants. 

(8) The Act after thirteen years of operation has sufficient 
support in Canadian public opinion to retain a place on the 
statute books, and to invite legislative consideration for 
its improvement, without vital alteration. 



25 



Appendix 

Abridged Text of The Canadian Industrial Disputes 
Investigation Act, 1907 

An Act to aid in the Prevention and Settlement of Strikes and Lockouts in 
Mines and Industries connected with Public Utilities. (6-7 Edward VII, 
chap. 20. Assented to 22d March, 1907.) 

1. This Act may be cited as The Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907. 

2. (e) "dispute" or "industrial dispute" means any dispute or difference 
between an employer and one or more of his employees, as to matters or things 
affecting or relating to work done or to be done by him or them, or as to the 
privileges, rights, and duties of employers or employees (not involving any such 
violation thereof as constitutes an indictable offence); and, without limiting 
the general nature of the above definition, includes all matters relating to — 

(1) the wages allowance or other remuneration of employees, 
or the price paid or to be paid in respect of employment; 

(2) the hours of employment, sex, age, qualification or status 
of employees, and the mode, terms and conditions of 
employment; 

(3) the employment of children or any person or persons or 
class of persons, or the dismissal of or refusal to employ 
any particular person or persons or class of persons; 

(4) claims on the part of an employer or any employee as 
to whether and, if so, under what circumstances, prefer- 
ence of employment should or should not be given to one 
class over another of persons being or not being members 
of labour or other organizations, British subjects or 
aliens; 

(5) materials supplied and alleged to be bad, unfit or un- 
suitable, or damage alleged to have been done to work; 

(6) any established custom or usage, either generally or 
in the particular district affected; 

(7) the interpretation of an agreement or a clause thereof; 

(/) "lockout" (without limiting the nature of its meaning) means a closing 
of a place of employment, or a suspension of work, or a refusal by an employer 
to continue to employ any number of his employees in consequence of a dispute, 
done with a view to compelling his employees, or to aid another employer in 
compelling his employees, to accept terms of employment; 

(g) "strike" or "to go on strike" (without limiting the nature of its meaning) 
means the cessation of work by a body of employees acting in combination, or 
a concerted refusal or a refusal under a common understanding of any number 
of employees to continue to work for an employer, in consequence of a dispute, 
done as a means of compelling their employer, or to aid other employees in 
compelling their employer, to accept terms of employment; 

26 



(h) "trade union" or "union" means any organization of employees formed 
for the purpose of regulating relations between employers and employees. 

3. The Minister of Labour shall have the general administration of this Act. 

5. Wherever any dispute exists between an employer and any of his em- 
ployees, and the parties thereto are unable to adjust it, either of the parties to 
the dispute may make application to the Minister for the appointment of a 
Board of Conciliation and Investigation, to which Board the dispute may be 
referred under the provisions of this Act: Provided, however, that, in the case 
of a dispute between a railway company and its employees, such dispute may 
be referred, for the purpose of conciliation and investigation, under the pro- 
visions concerning railway disputes in the Conciliation and Labour Act. 

6. Whenever, under this Act, an application is made in due form for the 
appointment of a Board of Conciliation and Investigation, and such application 
does not relate to a dispute which is the subject of a reference under the pro- 
visions concerning railway disputes in the Conciliation and Labour Act, the 
Minister, whose decision for such purpose shall be final, shall, within fifteen 
days from the date at which the application is received, establish such Board 
under his hand and seal of office, if satisfied that the provisions of this Act 
apply. The decision of the Minister as to granting or refusing a Board is final, 
and not subject to review by any court. 

7. Every Board shall consist of three members who shall be appointed by 
the Minister. 

2. Of the three members of the Board one shall be appointed on the recom- 
mendation of the employer and one on the recommendation of the employees 
(the parties to the dispute), and the third on the recommendation of the members 
so chosen. 

8. For the purposes of appointment of the members of the Board, the follow- 
ing provisions shall apply: — 

1. Each party to the dispute may, at the time of making application or 
within five days after being requested so to do by the Minister, recommend the 
name of one person who is willing and ready to act as a member of the Board, 
and the Minister shall appoint such person a member of the Board. 

2. If either of the parties fails or neglects to duly make any recommendation 
within the said period, or such extension thereof as the Minister, on cause 
shown, grants, the Minister shall, as soon thereafter as possible, appoint a fit 
person to be a member of the Board; and such member shall be deemed to be 
appointed on the recommendation of the said party. 

3. The members chosen on the recommendation of the parties may, within 
five days after their appointment, recommend the name of one person who is 
willing and ready to act as a third member of the Board, and the Minister shall 
appoint such person a member of the Board. 

4. If the members chosen on the recommendation of the parties fail or 
neglect to duly make any recommendation within the said period, or such 
extension thereof as the Minister, on cause shown, grants, the Minister shall, as 
soon thereafter as possible, appoint a fit person to be a third member of the 
Board, and such member shall be deemed to be appointed on the recommenda- 
tion of the two other members of the Board. 

5. The third member shall be the Chairman of the Board. 

11. No person shall act as a member of a Board who has any direct pecuniary 
interest in the issue of a dispute referred to such Board. 

27 



15. For the purpose of determining the manner in which, and the persons by 
whom, an application for the appointment of a Board is to be made, the follow- 
ing provisions shall apply: — 

1. The application shall be made in writing in the prescribed form, and 
shall be in substance a request to the Minister to appoint a Board to which the 
existing dispute may be referred under the provisions of this Act. 

2. The application shall be accompanied by — 
(a) A statement setting forth — 

(1) the parties to the dispute; 

(2) the nature and cause of the dispute, including any claims 
or demands made by either party upon the other, to 
which exception is taken; 

(3) an approximate estimate of the number of persons 
affected or likely to be affected by the dispute; 

(4) the efforts made by the parties themselves to adjust the 
dispute; 

and — (b as amended by 9-10 Edw. VII, chap. 29.) 

" (b) A statutory declaration setting forth that, failing an adjustment of the 
dispute or a reference thereof by the Minister to a Board, to the best of the 
knowledge and belief of the declarant a lockout or strike will be declared, and 
(except where the application is made by an employer in consequence of an 
intended change in wages or hours proposed by the said employer) that the 
necessary authority to declare such lockout or strike has been obtained; or, 
where a dispute directly affects employees in more than one province and such 
employees are members of a trade union having a general committee authorized 
to carry on negotiations in disputes between employers and employees and so 
recognized by the employer, a statutory declaration by the chairman or presi- 
dent and by the secretary of such committee setting forth that, failing an 
adjustment of the dispute or a reference thereof by the Minister to a Board, to 
the best of the knowledge and belief of the declarants a strike will be declared, 
that the dispute has been the subject of negotiations between the committee and 
the employer, that all efforts to obtain a satisfactory settlement have failed, 
and that there is no reasonable hope of securing a settlement by further 
negotiations." 

16. The application and the declaration accompanying it 

(3) if made by employees, members of a trade union, shall be signed by two 
of its officers duly authorized by a majority vote of the members of the union, 
or by a vote taken by ballot of the members of the union present at a meeting 
called on not less than three days' notice for the purpose of discussing the ques- 
tion; 

(4) if made by employees, some or all of whom are not members of a trade 
union, shall be signed by two of their number duly authorized by a majority 
vote taken by ballot of the employees present at a meeting called on not less 
than three days' notice for the purpose of discussing the question. 

21. Any dispute may be referred to a Board by application in that behalf 
made in due form by any party thereto; provided that no dispute shall be 
the subject of reference to a Board under this Act in any case in which the 
employees affected by the dispute are fewer than ten. 

23. In every case where a dispute is duly referred to a Board it shall be the 
duty of the Board to endeavor to bring about a settlement of the dispute, and 

28 



to this end the Board shall, in such manner as it thinks fit, expeditiously and 
carefully inquire into the dispute and all matters affecting the merits thereof 
and the right settlement thereof. In the course of such inquiry the Board may 
make all such suggestions and do all such things as it deems right and proper 
for inducing the parties to come to a fair and amicable settlement of the dispute, 
and may adjourn the proceedings for any period the Board thinks reasonable 
to allow the parties to agree upon terms of settlement. 

24. If a settlement of the dispute is arrived at by the parties during the 
course of its reference to the Board, a memorandum of the settlement shall be 
drawn up by the Board and signed by the parties, and shall, if the parties so 
agree, be binding as if made a recommendation by the Board under section 62 
of this Act, and a copy thereof with a report upon the proceedings shall be 
forwarded to the Minister. 

25. If a settlement of the dispute is not arrived at during the course of its 
reference to the Board, the Board shall make a full report thereon to the 
Minister, which report shall set forth the various proceedings and steps taken 
by the Board for the purpose of fully and carefully ascertaining all the facts and 
circumstances, and shall also set forth such facts and circumstances, and its 
findings therefrom, including the cause of the dispute and the Board's recom- 
mendation for the settlement of the dispute according to the merits and sub- 
stantial justice of the case. 

28. Upon receipt of the Board's report the Minister shall forthwith cause 
the report to be filed in the office of the Registrar and a copy thereof to be sent 
free of charge to the parties to the dispute, and to the representative of any 
newspaper published in Canada who applies therefor, and the Minister may 
distribute copies of the report, and of any minority report, in such manner as 
to him seems most desirable as a means of securing a compliance with the 
Board's recommendation. The Registrar shall, upon application, supply 
certified copies for a prescribed fee, to persons other than those mentioned in 
this section. 

29. For the information of Parliament and the public, the report and recom- 
mendation of the Board, and any minority report, shall, without delay, be 
published in the Labour Gazette, and be included in the annual report of the 
Department of Labour to the Governor General. 

30. For the purpose of its inquiry the Board shall have all the powers of 
summoning before it, and enforcing the attendance of witnesses, of administering 
oaths, and of requiring witnesses to give evidence on oath or on solemn affirma- 
tion (if they are persons entitled to affirm in civil matters) and to produce such 
books, papers or other documents or things as the Board deems requisite to the 
full investigation of the matters into which it is inquiring, as is vested in any 
court of record in civil cases. 

2. Any member of the Board may administer an oath, and the Board may 
accept, admit and call for such evidence as in equity and good conscience it 
thinks fit, whether strictly legal evidence or not. 

56. It shall be unlawful for any employer to declare or cause a lockout, or 
for any employee to go on strike, on account of any dispute prior to or during a 
reference of such dispute to a Board of Conciliation and Investigation under 
the provisions of this Act, or prior to or during a reference under the provisions 
concerning railway disputes in the Conciliation and Labour Act: Provided 
that nothing in this Act shall prohibit the suspension or discontinuance of any 
industry or of the working of any persons therein for any cause not constituting 
a lockout or strike: Provided also that, except where the parties have entered 
into an agreement under section 62 of this Act, nothing in this Act shall be held 
to restrain any employer from declaring a lockout, or any employee from going 
on strike in respect of any dispute which has been duly referred to a Board and 

29 



which has been dealt with under section 24 or 25 of this Act, or in respect of 
any dispute which has been the subject of a reference under the provisions 
concerning railway disputes in the Conciliation and Labour Act. 

57. Employers and employees shall give at least thirty days' notice of an 
intended change affecting conditions of employment with respect to wages or 
hours; and in every case where a dispute has been referred to a Board, until 
the dispute has been finally dealt with by the Board, neither of the parties nor 
the employees affected shall alter the conditions of employment with respect to 
wages or hours, or on account of the dispute do or be concerned in doing, 
directly or indirectly, anything in the nature of a lockout or strike, or a sus- 
pension or discontinuance of employment or work, but the relationship of 
employer and employee shall continue uninterrupted by the dispute, or anything 
arising out of the dispute; but if, in the opinion of the Board, either party uses 
this or any other provision of this Act for the purpose of unjustly maintaining a 
given condition of affairs through delay,and the Board so reports to the Minister, 
such party shall be guilty of an offence, and liable to the same penalties as are 
imposed for a violation of the next preceding section. 

58. Any employer declaring or causing a lockout contrary to the provisions 
of this Act shall be liable to a fine of not less than one hundred dollars, nor more 
than one thousand dollars for each day or part of a day that such lockout exists. 

59. Any employee who goes on strike contrary to the provisions of this Act 
shall be liable to a fine of not less than ten dollars nor more than fifty dollars, for 
each day or part of a day that such employee is on strike. 

60. Any person who incites, encourages or aids in any manner any employer 
to declare or continue a lockout, cr any employee to go or continue on strike 
contrary to the provisions of this Act, shall be guilty of an offence and liable to 
a fine of not less than fifty dollars nor more than one thousand dollars. 

62. Either party to a dispute which may be referred under this Act to a 
Board may agree in writing, at any time before or after the Board has made 
its report and recommendation, to be bound by the recommendation of the 
Board in the same manner as parties are bound upon an award made pursuant 
to a reference to arbitration on the order of a court of record; every agreement 
so to be bound made by one party shall be forwarded to the Registrar, who shall 
communicate it to the other party, and if the other party agrees in like manner 
to be bound by the recommendation of the Board, then the recommendation 
shall be made a rule of the said court on the application of either party and shall 
be enforceable in like manner. 

63. In the event of a dispute arising in any industry or trade other than 
such as may be included under the provisions of this Act, and such dispute 
threatens to result in a lockout or strike, or has actually resulted in a lockout or 
strike, either of the parties may agree in writing to aliow such dispute to be 
referred to a Board of Conciliation and Investigation, to be constituted under 
provisions of this Act. 

2. Every agreement to allow such reference shall be forwarded to the Regis- 
trar, who shall communicate it to the other party, and if such other party agrees 
in like manner to allow the dispute to be referred to a Board, the dispute may 
be so referred as if the industry or trade and the parties were included within 
the provisions of this Act. 

By the Amendment of 1918 it was provided that: Where in any industry a 
strike or lockout has occurred, and in the public interest or for any other 
reason it seems to the Minister expedient, the Minister, on the application of 
any municipality interested, or of the mayor, reeve, or other head officer, or 
acting head officer thereof, or of his own motion may, without application ot 
either of the parties to the dispute, strike or lockout, whether it involves one or 
more employers or employees in the employ of one or more employers, consti- 

30 



tute a Board of Conciliation and Investigation under this Act in respect of any 
dispute, or strike or lockout, or may in any such case, if it seems to him expedi- 
ent, either with or without an application from any interested party, recommend 
to the Governor in Council the appointment of some person or persons as com- 
missioner or commissioners under the provisions of the Inquiries Act to inquire 
into the dispute, strike or lockout, or into any matters or circumstances con- 
nected therewith. 

The Minister, where he deems it expedient, may, either upon or without 
any application in that behalf, make or cause to be made any inquiries he thinks 
fit regarding industrial matters, and may cause such steps to be taken by his 
department and the officers thereof as seem calculated to secure industrial 
peace and to promote conditions favourable to settlements of disputes." 



91900 

31 



Publications 

of the 

National Industrial Conference Board 

15 Beacon Street, Boston, Mass. 



Research Report No. I. Workmen's Compensation Acts in the United States — The 
Legal Phase. 60 pages. April, 1917. Revised, August, 1919. £1.00. 

Research Report No. 2. Analysis of British Wartime Reports on Hours of Work 
as Related to Output and Fatigue. 58 pages. November, 1917. £1.00. 

Research Report No. j. Strikes in American Industry' in Wartime ?0 pages March 
1918. 50 cents. 

Research Report No. 4. Hours of Work as Related to Output and Health of Workers 

— Cotton Manufacturing. 64 pages. March, 1918. £1.00. 

Research Report No. 5. The Canadian Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. 28 

pages. April, 1918. 50 cents. 
Research Report No. 6. Sickness Insurance or Sickness Prevention? 24 pages Mnv 

1918. 50 cents. ' ' 
Research Report No. 7. Hours of W t ork as Related to Output and Health of Workers 

— Boot and Shoe Industry. 76 pages. June, 1918. £1.00. 

Research Report No. 8. Wartime Employment of Women in the Metal Trades 80 

pages. July, 1918. £1.00. 
Research Report No. p. Wartime Changes in the Cost of Living — July 1914 to 

June, 1918. 82 pages. August, 1918. £1.00. 
Research Report No. 10. Arbitration and Wage-Fixing in Australia. 5' pages Octo 

ber, 1918. £1.00. 
Research Report No. it. The Eight-Hour Day Defined. 12 pages. December 1918. 

50 cents. 
Research Report No. 12. Hours of Work as Related to Output and Health of Workers 

— Wool Manufacturing. 69 pages. December, 1918. £1.00. 

Research Report No. 13. Rest Periods for Industrial Workers. 55 pages Tmuirv 

1919. £1.00. r * 
Research Report No. 14. Wartime Changes in the Cost of Living — July 1914 to 

November, 1918. 33 pages. February, 1919. 75 cents. 
Research Report No. 15. Problems of Industrial Readjustment in the United States 

58 pages. February, 1919. £1.00. 
Research Report No. 16. Hours of Work as Related to Output and Health of Workers 

— Silk Manufacturing. 54 pages. March, 1919. £1.00. 

Research Report No. 17. Wartime Changes in the Cost of Living — July 1914 to 

March, 1919. 31 pages. May, 1919. 75 cents. 
Research Report No. 18. Hours of Work as Related to Output and Health of 

Workers — Metal Manufacturing Industries. 62 pages. July, 1919. £1.00. 
Research Report No. ig. Changes in the Cost of Living — July, 1914, to July 1919 

31 pages. September, 1919. 75 cents. 
Research Report No. 20. Wartime Changes in Wages — (September, 1914 — March 

1919). 128 pages. September, 1919. £1.50. 
Research Report No. 21. Works Councils in the United States. 135 pages October 

1919. £1.50. 
Research Report No. 22. The Cost of Living among Wage-Earners — Fall River 

Massachusetts, October, 1919. 18 pages. November, 1919. 50 cents. 
Research Report No. 23. Conciliation and Arbitration in New Zealwd 46 pases 

December, 1919. £1.00. 
Research Report No. 24. The Cost of Living among Wage-Earners — Lawrence 

Massachusetts, November, 1919. 21 pages. December, 1919. 50 cents. 
Research Report No. 25. Changes in the Cost of Living, July, 1914, to November 

1919. 24 pages. December, 1919. 75 cents. 
Research Report No. 26. A Works Council Manual. 32 pages. February, 1920. £1.00. 
Research Report No. 27. The Hours of Work Problem in the Five Major Indus 

91 pages. March, 1920. £1.00. 

RESEARCH REPORTS IN PREPARATION 

Conciliation and Arbitration in France. 

Federal and State Agencies of Conciliation and Arbitration in the United States. 

Extent and Causes of Absence among Industrial Workers. 

INDUSTRIAL NEWS SURVEY 

Weekly. Important industrial news in concise form. £2.00 per year. 




~ c 



£m& 



UCLA-Young Research Library 

HD5508.A3 N2 






















L 009 571 821 9 




m 



K 



J, 



'S~h , 






Hi 



■ 



m 



r< 



'S 






■ •■ ' ! X 









"V. 



';**•-,.